From owner-freebsd-current Thu Apr 23 12:10:34 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA06923 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:10:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from sunny.bog.msu.su (sunny.bog.msu.su [158.250.20.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA06914 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:10:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@bog.msu.su) Received: from localhost (dima@localhost) by sunny.bog.msu.su (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA00551; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:06:31 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from dima@bog.msu.su) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:06:30 +0400 (MSD) From: Dmitry Khrustalev To: Studded cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , patl@phoenix.volant.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why is xtend in the base system? In-Reply-To: <353F8CFE.1070E9BE@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Studded wrote: > My cause isn't xtend. That's just today's example. Yesterday's example > was qcam, tomorrow the example will be different. My cause is to break Your yesterday's cause resulted in that hardware that perfectly worked for me is now unsupported in base system in favor of some not existent port solution. I fail to see any value in this. -Dima To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message